Andreas Schuh wrote: >> Yes, that's what I was referring to. I see why you have it. I'm not >> convinced it should be upstreamed. > > I guess most people can live with defining a CMake macro for it if they > want to.
I thought it might make sense for unit tests, but something else generally introduces a requirement for a macro when creating unit tests anyway: https://gitorious.org/grantlee/grantlee/source/c1b0fd62007c46856a86c45b0098ed37ee24fa42:templates/tests/CMakeLists.txt#L80 I think in that use-case, add_executable(${testname}.cpp) gives no particular advantage. As for everything else, thanks for your comments and feel free to propose individual changes to cmake where it seems appropriate. Thanks, Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
